Edited Aug. 21, 2018 at 12:22 p.m.
Perhaps I'm not being clear, but the amount of impact isn't the issue. I was using gf vs. Xgf for simplicity, but it might be simpler to state that shot quality doesn't matter if the player is not producing results. At least as it relates to position in the standings, which is our goal here.
If Ovechkin's goals for is 0 in 20 games, his team will drop in the standings.
If he has 60 goals for in the next 60 games, his team will rise in the standings.
If you incorporate his xGF (say 60), even if it's weighted lower, you are still buoying his team's position in the standings by some amount through those 20 games. Instead of Washington dropping 10 spots through those 20 games, perhaps they only drop 8 or 9 places.
That impact would be magnified if you have multiple players that are "snake bitten". If I have 10 players underachieving, and being propped up by their xGF, Washington in the above example might only drop 3 or 4 spots in our standings.
Perhaps that isnt significant on a month to month basis if everyone regressed to the mean by the end of the season, but 1 or 2 places could make a difference in waiver order and final draft position, depending on the timing.
We WANT the standings to be re-ordered from scratch every month. Therefore it doesn't make sense to include expected numbers or "adjust" the actual performance of a player based on a predictive statistical model.
It's not who deserves to rank higher or owns the most players that are normally good, but who gets the best results from the players they own.
I hope that makes more sense. We can look into other alternatives. I realize WAR incorporates some predictive metrics, so isn't a perfect solution, but at least then something like xGF would be a fraction of a piece of the picture, as opposed to a full puzzle piece.
If we can't agree on xGF% then I'm fine looking at other alternatives, but I am greatly against using +/- as a scoring method or just singular raw point totals only. All the good teams' players IRL will be the only ones in the game that has any value if that's the case. In the above example, you give about Ovi though that's not really what xGF% is showing. If Ovi has 0 goals in 20 games his team would not necessarily drop in the standings if he doesn't concede any goals in that 20 game stretch, and you would be able to get a better picture of his play using xGF%. If he's driving better scoring opportunities, but Tom Wilson just can't finish those chances, Ovi would then be punished in our game because his teammate is bad IRL? I'm not sure how that is any more fair, especially if in the game you surround the example player with better linemates than he has IRL. I believe that is why xGF% was added as such a small %. A % that would not greatly impact the standings but would be used as a neutral way to account for a large amount of team "shakeups" and identify which IRL players were driving positive results apart from just raw totals. A lot, if not most people, have been basing decisions regarding team building on how well each player they would bring in would play with the individuals on their fictitious teams - not IRL teams. If we are going off a system that only rewards IRL raw results without context that completely alters the market price of every individual in the game meaning if fantasy hockey style scoring is the route we are going I think that needs to be cleared up sooner rather than later. For me personally, I know I've targeted guys that don't necessarily win the scoring titles every year but drive positive results for their teammates and could exceed their IRL results if placed in positions to do so. Like I said, we don't have to use xGF%, but as a small % of the scoring system, it seemed like a neutral way to evaluate who had good seasons IRL among players who might not post 100+ point seasons consistently or even ever. Here are a few more things we could consider or look into, IMO, that others might like better (I'll provide last years "top-5 forwards min. 500 minutes TOI" to give everyone an understanding of who led in some categories, for reference):
GF%RelTM - goals for % relative to teammates (Wild Bill, Couturier, Faksa, Brown, and Matthews)
xGF%RelTM - expected goals for % relative to teammates (B. Ritchie, Lowry, Sedin, Couturier, Dadonov)
GS - Game Score (McDavid, Panarin, Kucherov, Pastrnak, Giroux)
GS/60 - Game Score per 60 (would need to set a minimum threshold of TOI for players to qualify though so this may be tricky
) (Marchand, Bergeron, McDavid, C. Smith, Pastrnak)
SCF (on ice) - Scoring Chances For while on ice (McDavid, Crosby, Panarin, Schenn, Kucherov)
HDCF (on ice) - High Danger Chances For while on ice (McDavid, Crosby, Radulov, Gaudreau, Seguin)
SCF % (on ice)- Scoring Chances For % (Lowry, Schwartz, Heinen, B. Ritchie, Granlund)
HDCF % (on ice) - High Danger Chances For % (Lowry, Ritchie, Granlund, Koivu, Benn)
iSCF - Individual Scoring Chances For (McDavid, Skinner, Ovi, Tarasenko, MacKinnon)
iHDCF - Individual High Danger Chances For (McDavid, E. Kane, Hornqvist, Saad, Gallagher)
.. I know Rico suggested WAR, but most WAR/GAR models can't be done/calculated until the conclusion of the season leaving us in the dark until then (massive effects on TDL, waiver order, etc.). An alternative that can be calculated as the season progresses is Game Score (GS) - which I know AK you have mentioned you liked in the past. Maybe that is our middle ground? Idk, but these above suggestions are the ones I have that we can consider since nobody on either side is really suggesting anything else. I'd rather not debate about this for weeks and then the season is upon us if that makes sense. If nobody is satisfied with these please make suggestions or contribute instead of just taking one side or another. It will speed up the process instead of everyone in the league saying who they agree with and who they don't. This really shouldn't turn into a "pissing contest", but rather everyone finding a way to balance the scoring system to appropriately account/weigh each player (even the depth guys) on our teams to avoid a scoring system that only rewards the top-10 point scorers IRL.
.. I would like to add that you can see why it's important to add a context type stat that is weighted at least a little bit. B. Ritchie had a sneaky good year but nobody talks about him. He consistently was the leader on every line he was placed as shown from most of the stats above. It's important to note that he only had 80 minutes with Benn or Seguin and his positive numbers from xGF% should give him a boost in value since the majority of his minutes came with terrible teammates (Hanzal, Spezza, G. Smith, and Elie). This is why we need something to make up for this. If I traded for Ritchie and put him with say Pavs/Kreider there is no way he would have only scored 14 points all year based on those numbers.